Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Ashleyyoursmile

The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a successful request for adminship. Please do not modify it.

Ashleyyoursmile

Final (224/6/4); ended 15:15, 22 May 2021 (UTC) — xaosflux ^Talk 15:15, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

Nomination

Ashleyyoursmile (talk · contribs) – So, it’s been three months since the last RfA and people are wondering when there’s going to be another one, and if we can get the “class of 2019” more involved. Well, here’s one for you to take a look at, who in my view has just the right mix of content creator and vandal fighter.

I first became aware of Ashley earlier this year, when they asked for my administrative help on a few things, and to give a second opinion on Pay Your Way in Pain’s good article review. I then noticed they’d written a whole bunch of other good articles, mostly on the subject of pop music, which is no mean feat when those sort of articles frequently need attention. On top of that, Ashley’s a regular vandal fighter, and has contributed a lot to Articles for deletion debates and vandalism and username reports; despite getting attacked by attention-seeking trolls, they have kept a cool head, are unfailingly polite to everyone, and never rise to the bait. That gives me confidence that Ashley has the required skills and temperament to be a good administrator, and I hope you share this view. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 08:52, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

Co-nomination by Barkeep49

When I examine someone for RfA I am hoping to see at least one area where the editor demonstrates a mastery of Wikipedia that would make them a good candidate for administrator. With Ashley there are several. They clearly know how to create high quality content with 17 good articles, 2 featured lists, a bucketload of did you knows and all sorts of plans to add to those totals. They have taken those skills into project space through their work at AfD and with speedy deletions. I particularly admire how they bring the same level of thought and care to music (their main editing area) as they do to other areas. On top of this, Ashley also has experience in more traditional vandal fighting areas like AIV and UAA. And wherever you encounter them, you'll find the same calm, helpful, friendly editor. I am excited to be able to co-nominate this versatile Wikipedian for adminship and hope you will join me in supporting Ashley. Barkeep49 (talk) 14:48, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: Thank you Ritchie333 and Barkeep49 for the kind words. I accept the nomination. I have never edited for pay and never will. --Ashleyyoursmile! 14:59, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

Questions for the candidate

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia as an administrator. Please answer these questions to provide guidance for participants:

1. What administrative work do you intend to take part in?

A: Since I’m a regular contributor to the Administrator intervention against vandalism (AIV) and Usernames for administrator attention (UAA) noticeboards, these are the two administrative areas where I intend to take part. I would also like to help out at the Requests for page protection (RfPP), where I have made some requests of protection, and assist in closing Articles for deletion discussions and deleting pages tagged under criteria for speedy deletion. I take part in Did you know and would be willing to build queues and promote hooks. Since the admin tools come with a lot of responsibility and ultimately, everyone is accountable for the actions they perform, I do not intend to take any administrative action without having proper knowledge and understanding of the relevant guidelines and policies.

2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?

A: On Wikipedia, I primarily work on music articles, especially those on pop songs. Out of the several good articles that I have worked on, I am proud of "Lights Up", "Black Swan", and The Fate of Fausto. The current version of "Lights Up" is the result of efforts of numerous brilliant editors who have participated in the peer review over the past few months. I'm really grateful to them for the time and effort they have spent to make the article better. I plan to take it to FAC soon. "Black Swan" is my very first GA and I remember taking it from a stub-class article to good-article status. Although The Fate of Fausto is not a song article but a children's picture book, it is the first article that I've created and taken to GA. I'm also proud of the two featured lists that I have helped in promoting- List of awards and nominations received by Harry Styles and Harry Styles discography, both are part of a current featured topic nomination.

3. Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or have other users caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future?

A: I believe since people are volunteering their time to help the project, it is important to promote the spirit of collegiality by always assuming good faith and maintaining civility. Normally, I have found I can remain calm and civil even when I'm disagreeing with people. I do understand that performing actions using the admin tools could probably result in me having some displeased people to deal with. From my observation, I feel it is important to take some time off to think about such issues, and then articulate and discuss it. A few days ago, I had NAC'd this AfD and closed it as Keep, and when another editor objected to the NAC, I self-reverted the close. It was later closed as Keep by an admin.

---

You may ask optional questions below. There is a limit of two questions per editor. Multi-part questions disguised as one question, with the intention of evading the limit, are disallowed. Follow-up questions relevant to questions you have already asked are allowed.

Optional question from StarshipSLS

4. How will you deal with disputes between users? For example, in DRN?

A: Hi StarshipSLS, thanks for the question. I admit that I do lack experience in dispute resolution, having spent much of time contributing to other areas. But here's roughly what my approach would be: If editors are engaged in dispute over about some content matter, I would first check if they have discussed it thoroughly on the relevant article's talk page and there was no unambiguous consensus in favour of the issue raised. After analysing the dispute, I would ask questions to all the involved editors and listen to what they have to say. I would check that the issues proposed comply with Wikipedia's WP:V, WP:NPOV, and WP:BLP policies. In some cases, it might be that a new editor is seeking dispute resolution, and might not be aware of our policies and guidelines. I would have to make sure that there are no misunderstandings in these cases. I would encourage the involved editors to assume good faith, remain calm, civil, and not make personal attacks or threats towards other editors. At the end, we are always looking towards consensus and once that is attained, the dispute should be resolved keeping in mind that it is an improvement to the article in question. --Ashleyyoursmile! 18:30, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

@Ashleyyoursmile: Great! I occasionally help in DRN and hope to see you there one day! StarshipSLS (Talk), (My Contributions) 18:41, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

5. What will you focus on if and when you become an admin?

A: Strike per general comments section —valereee (talk) 22:24, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

Optional question from Sdrqaz

6. Given your stated interest to work in CSD, what are your thoughts on the G5 criterion for speedy deletion? Would you apply it to an otherwise unobjectionable page?

A: Hi Sdrqaz, thanks for the question. From my understanding, G5 applies to all pages which have been created by a blocked/banned user in violation of the block/ban, and such pages have substantial edits of the user. If this user has created the page(s) before they had been blocked/banned from the community, then G5 should not apply. Since the purpose of block/ban is that the user is not able to contribute to the project, using sockpuppets to violate their block and creating pages to contribute is not acceptable and such pages are normally deleted under this criterion irrespective of the quality of the pages. --Ashleyyoursmile! 03:02, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

Follow-up: You've given the policy basis behind G5. Is there any circumstance where you would decline that nomination in the spirit of IAR and taking responsibility for that content?

A: I think that would depend on the page that has been tagged. It's difficult to say whether I'd delete the page or decline the nomination without seeing its content. As far as the policy goes, all edits including good and bad made by a user in violation of their block/ban should be reverted. It could be that this user has created some strong, productive encyclopedic content and deleting this under G5 might prove to be counter-productive to this project. In such cases, IAR could be invoked. However, this defeats the purpose of the block/ban, which was imposed in the first place to stop them from contributing. --Ashleyyoursmile! 17:56, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

Optional question from EpicPupper

7. Which of the 5 pillars would you, in your opinion, say to be most important?

A: Hi EpicPupper, thanks for the question. I do understand that all five pillars are important to keep the project running. Specifically, I think WP:5P2 is more important since all information added should be written from a neutral point of view, and should be verifiable. Our job here is to simply present what reliable sources say about a subject rather than editorialising. This should be kept in mind especially when we are editing WP:BLPs, and adding any controversial information, since such content could constitute as potentially libel when there are no reliable sources to verify such statements, and could affect the subjects in real life. At the same time, since we are here to contribute in a collaborative way, WP:5P4 is important. We should always assume good faith and approach others cordially, remain calm and civil, and not engage in personal attacks, since these could prove to be harmful and disruptive to the project. --Ashleyyoursmile! 03:02, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the thoughtful response! EpicPupper (talk) 16:36, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

Optional question from NightWolf1223

8. How will you handle an angry unblock request?

A: Hi NightWolf1223, thanks for the question. Like how angry users should not be blocked unless they have demonstrated sufficient disruption on their part to justify a block, a user who is angry and thinks they have been wronged, should not be unblocked if their appeal does not address the reason of their block. Threatening admins to unblock rather than providing proper rationale and not engaging in any attempt to discuss, is not going to help their case. --Ashleyyoursmile! 03:21, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

Optional question from Vaticidalprophet

9. I'm super enthusiastic to see this RfA, and hoping to land thoroughly in the support column -- I see you around at DYK all the time and really like your work, and believe we really need to be recruiting content creators to the corps. However, last night I was reading through some discussions about speedy deletion criteria, and I was concerned by some of your statements here that inspired this RfC, which closed with the position G2 didn't apply in the way you had been applying it. What do you understand as the use case for G2 speedy deletion?

A: Hi Vaticidalprophet, thanks for the question. I admit that a few drafts that I'd applied G2 to were somewhat borderline cases, and led to the RfC. From my understanding, G2 applies to pages that have some content that typically look like test edit(s), edits made in good faith to see if they can actually edit Wikipedia. Blank drafts should not be speedied under G2, just because they are blank; we should let them get deleted under G13, if there are unedited for six months. In other words, pages that eligible for G2 should sufficiently demonstrate that they look like test pages. Ideally, any page is not potentially harmful to the project, such as pages with no blatant vandalism, negative, unsourced, and potentially libellous about living persons, spam, advertising, promotional, and copyrighted material could be left alone for sometime. --Ashleyyoursmile! 03:57, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

Optional questions from Explicit

10. Your first edits to Wikipedia show an incredible amount of familiarity with how this project works, including formatting references. Have you previously edited Wikipedia using another account or as an unregistered contributor?

A: Hi Explicit, thanks for the question. I had edited Wikipedia previously as an IP, before deciding to register an account. --Ashleyyoursmile! 04:10, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

11. You recently created View (Shinee song), where you used Korean-language references. You provided translations for the reference titles, but some of them are quite awkward ("'M Countdown' SHINee, was it 1st Normal charge for 2 weeks in a row", "Hun-Hoon"). Are these machine translations or do you hold some proficiency in Korean?

A: While I work on foreign language articles, such as Korean, Japanese, and Swedish, I'm not proficient in these languages and try to rely on machine translations. Google translations often come about awkward, like what happened with "View", and I try to revise them accordingly later. Since I created this article recently, I haven't been able to look into these properly. I will try to rephrase them in a manner which makes it easy for the readers. Apologies for any inconvenience. --Ashleyyoursmile! 04:10, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

Optional question from Tim Smith

12. If promoted, will you join Category:Wikipedia administrators open to recall?

A: Hi Tim Smith, thanks for the question. Yes, if promoted, I'd be open to recall. If the community feels that I no longer deserve to retain the tools and wants me to resign, I'd be glad to step down. --Ashleyyoursmile! 06:11, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

Optional questions from Giraffer

13. Have you ever invoked IAR, and if so, could you give some examples?

A: Hi Giraffer, thanks for the question. I haven't invoked IAR although editors do cite it at some instances. Personally, I think our guidelines and policies are thorough and process plays a big part in building consensus and helping this project to run. --Ashleyyoursmile! 12:35, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

(optional follow-up question) In that case, Ashleyyoursmile, how would you interpret IAR, and could you give an example of when to invoke it? Thanks, Giraffer ^{(talk·contribs)} 17:12, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

A: From my understanding, IAR represents how consensus determines the rules that are going to be enforced on Wikipedia. If editors generally agree upon some law, it is then enforced. But consensus can change, and IAR shows how no rule is fixed and can be subjected to changes. Whether to invoke IAR in a particular situation depends on that situation and is difficult to say hypothetically. IAR might be invoked while closing AfDs, for instance where the subject is a musical band who are yet to debut. So the band might become notable once the recording they release charts or receives substantial coverage in multiple reliable independent sources. So deleting the article in this case might not be the right choice, rather it seems reasonable to draftify such an article. See this AfD where I've voted in a similar fashion. Also, you might want to look at my answer given to the follow-up part of question 6 above. It is also about IAR. --Ashleyyoursmile! 06:39, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for your response. Giraffer ^{(talk·contribs)} 17:14, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

14. What is your weakest area on Wikipedia, and how do you intend to act in an administrative capacity there?

A: I'm not well-versed in templates, scripts, codes, and bots, so these are my weakest areas on Wikipedia. I do not intend to take administrative actions in these areas and would leave such cases for admins who have experience in technical fields. --Ashleyyoursmile! 12:35, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

Optional question from Vaticidalprophet

15. Second question from me, after a lot of thought -- don't worry, rules mean you won't need to see any more of me after this :) I mentioned in my support (#94) that while it didn't trouble me so severely as to oppose the candidacy of a dedicated content creator, I'm not entirely comfortable with the canned/boilerplate sense I get from your answers. I've decided to give a bit of a tougher question -- sorry! -- to outline a situation you might run into as an admin, and get your response to it.

Let's set the scene. You're looking at CAT:G3, out to perform the noble task of uprooting hoaxes and vandalism before they can blight the project. You encounter a draft about a video game, written by a user who registered a couple of hours before he created it. It's a solid length (somewhere around 800 words, to throw out a number); the spelling and grammar are inconsistent and the formatting belies unfamiliarity with wiki-markup, but the work was clearly built on love. (Think "ugly Christmas jumper/sweater", maybe.) The game is vaguely described, but the lead defines it as a "child friendly gta" (sic). There's a slightly botched infobox and four image uploads (hosted on Commons, described as CC-BY-SA 4.0 own work), one of which is obviously a copyvio from Roblox, another obviously a copyvio from Grand Theft Auto V, and the other two of which appear to be genuine own work made of freely licensed game dev assets. The db-hoax assessment is correct; the game gets no hits on your preferred search engine(s), and the article claims the game is "best seling", "very popular with everyone", and "favrit game of tylr the creator", all of which are blatant fiction.

The draft's talk page has three separate contested deletion messages, made using the boilerplate structure for them. The first has, following the boilerplate, "please do not delete my wikipedia artical I worked very hard on this". The second has "please mods dont delete it please Ill fix it". The third has "I just wanted to write a wikipedia artical please do not delete this i worked so hard i was writing for hours I just want people to no about my game and write about it on the wikipedia please help me fix it".

You delete it, as you should, because it's a blatant hoax. An hour later, you get a new talk page message from the creator. The header is "WHY THE HELL DID YOU DELETE MY ARTICAL???". The body is "I just wanted to make a wikipedia artical and I didnt no it was going to be deleted so quickly. I saw the sign to delete but i thoght i was stopping ti from being deleted and a mod would tell me how to fix. now the mod has come but youve deleted the entire artical?? Im so sad why did u do that??? you got rid of it forever and now i can never write it and it took me so many hours!! you could of just told me how to fix it!! why did you get rid of all my work?? i wrote it on the wikipedia and now its gone forever because it's not saved anywhere why did you do that?? why are people on wikipedia so mean?? I thoght I was doing what im ment to." How do you respond?

A: Hi Vaticidalprophet, thanks again for the question. I would explain to the user that we have some guidelines and policies about what kind of information can be added to Wikipedia, and hoaxes do not belong here since these violate our verifiability policy. Since you mentioned in the question that they had used "inconsistent" grammar, spelling and "botched" infobox, etc., so I'd advise them to use sandbox to practise editing and get familiar with the wiki-markups. I would also refer them to take the help of Articles for creation in future, if they decide to contribute here constructively and actually write about encyclopedic topics. --Ashleyyoursmile! 12:35, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

Optional question from Blablubbs

16. Do you plan to participate in sockpuppet investigations in an administrative capacity?

A: Hi Blablubbs, thanks for the question. I have contributed to several SPI cases, including: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, which I've filed based on behavioral similarities. I'm willing to participate in SPIs in an administrative capacity, when I have gained more experience there. --Ashleyyoursmile! 17:56, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

Optional question from NightWolf1223

17. What is an area of this project that you feel you lack experience?

A: Struck following questioner's withdrawal. Sdrqaz (talk) 00:49, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

Optional question from EpicPupper

18. Just curious, where does your username come from/what is the meaning of it?

A:

Optional questions from Elli

19. Why do you think people enjoy editing Wikipedia?

A: Hi Elli, Wikipedia is an open source of knowledge to millions of people across the world. I think people feel sharing knowledge is a great way to contribute to the platform and enjoy doing so knowing that the information they add can help other people know about a particular topic which was previously unknown to them. I think editing Wikipedia also teaches us many things and helps us to respect views of others. --Ashleyyoursmile! 12:21, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

20. As an admin, would you consider participating in any outreach to attempt to recruit new editors?

A: I always value people who are volunteering on this project and am thankful to them. I'd be inclined to participate to help new editors join the platform and contribute towards building the encyclopedia. --Ashleyyoursmile! 12:21, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

Optional question from 2409:4054:89:8312:4E1C:1FD4:A2F5:17B3

21. An editor who has been here for about 11 years with nearly 2000 edits edited an article writing in the summary this is accurate, please don't change this. But a brand new user edited the page changing some content, without an edit summary. The first user reverted changes using rollback but new user kept reinstating his version of the page. The first user reverts back leaving a talk page message on new users talk page: "What the hell are you doing, don't you read my edit summary (pointing to the diff)". As an admin, what will you do. What will be your admin action?

A: Firstly, 11 years and 2000 edits does not matter if the content which the first editor has added violates WP:V and WP:NPOV. Let's assume that the edits made by them are valid and can be included. Secondly, brand new editors are not expected to know that they are required to use edit summaries whenever they make changes. Since you have mentioned that the new user "kept reinstating his version of the page"- I'll assume you mean to say that both editors have reverted each other multiple times on the page. Now to answer your question, it could be that the second editor's edits were actually vandalism in which case, the usage of rollback by the first editor is justified, since rollback does not warrant an edit summary. If the edits of the second editor were indeed vandalism then I will check if the second editor has been adequately warned. If they had been warned adequately and still they have continued to make consecutive vandalism edits, I will block the second editor for vandalism.

Now assuming the edits made by the second editor are not vandalism but this is a content dispute, then rollback edits by the first editor to revert the edits of the second editor constitute WP:ROLLBACKABUSE. Both editors have been edit warring on the article trying to reinstate their preferred version. If they have reverted each other on the page more than three times within 24 hours, both have violated WP:3RR. It does not matter who is correct because such a behaviour is disruptive. I might partially block both of them from editing the page in this case for violating 3RR and warn the first editor for misusing rollback. Now it could be that both editors have not violated 3RR. In that case, I would suggest them to discuss their changes on the article's talk page in a civil manner without making personal attacks and come to an agreement. I would also warn the first editor on incorrectly using rollback. If both editors have not engaged in any conversation on their changes and still continue to edit war and revert each other, blocking may follow. --Ashleyyoursmile! 11:14, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

Optional question from SunDawn

22. First of all, glad to see you here! I see you lots of times on my anti-vandalism runs, and you did a very great job. However, I have a question. A majority of your edits, in my opinion, are in less contentious areas. You also have stated you will work at WP:AIV, WP:UAA and WP:RFPP, which in my opinion, also areas that are less contentious areas. My question: If you become admin, will you also work on more contentious areas? (For example: RfCs about areas under sanction, AfDs that are contentious, etc.). Thank you!

A: Hi Sundawn, from what I've seen, any editor who becomes an admin could get involved in areas they were previously unfamiliar with. So maybe eventually I'd work on more contentious areas, but not anytime soon. --Ashleyyoursmile! 19:44, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

23. And sorry, one more question that I intend to ask to all admins on their RfAs. While we know that neutrality is one of the most important concepts in Wikipedia, how do you approach contentious situations that are on the opposite spectrum of your religious or political beliefs? (For example: Let's pretend you are Armenian and the case is about Armenian genocide, or pretend that you are conservative and the case is about liberalism) Thank you!

A:

Optional question from Mikehawk10

24. I've noticed that many of your articles have been in the general area of popular music. What is your general philosophy in determining what genre(s) to attribute to a particular song, and how would you approach mediating content disputes between editors who have a disagreement about a song's genre(s)? — Mikehawk10 (talk) 08:40, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

A: Hi Mikehawk10, yes genre disputes are quite common on music articles. Generally, I have come to agree with what Template:Infobox song has to say that we should add the genre which best describes the song to the infobox. To determine this, I have come to follow what most reliable sources have to say about the song's composition. So if I have found one source which calls the song R&B and eight sources which call it pop rock, I would mention pop rock as the song's genre. Some people would disagree to this and try adding a genre which they feel fits the song well- without majority of the reliable published sources citing such a genre or per their own synthesis or try to list every possible genre to the song, and that is disruptive. I would ask the involved editors to start a discussion on the relevant article's talk page to reach a consensus on what genre should be included. Such a discussion should proceed in a civilised manner without personal attacks. During this time, I would ask them not to edit the article and add genre until they have come to an agreement. If the involved editors have not engaged in conversations on the topic, and still continue to alter the genre without a proper consensus, blocking or protection of the article could follow. --Ashleyyoursmile! 11:14, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

Optional question from Parnaval

25. As I see from your timecard that you are active whole day, How will you prevent any small kid (your child/young sibling) from mistakenly using your account when you move away for some work. You see, it is very important to prevent, because if for fun they use block/delete/move you may get desysoped.

A: Hi Parnaval, I understand the responsibility that comes with becoming an admin and would keep to the necessary personal security practices so that my account is not compromised. --Ashleyyoursmile! 11:51, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

Striking per general comments —valereee (talk) 23:02, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

Optional question from Cwmhiraeth

26. In your answer to Question 10, you stated that you had "edited Wikipedia previously as an IP, before deciding to register an account". Have you ever had another account?

A: Hi Cwmhiraeth, apologies for any confusion. This is my only account. Ashleyyoursmile2 and Ashleyyoursmile3 have been created by blocked users/LTAs to impersonate me, and have no relation to me. --Ashleyyoursmile! 19:44, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

Optional question from Oshwah

27. What are your thoughts on blocking experienced editors and content creators for repeatedly violating Wikipedia's civility and no personal attack policies? How would you handle these situations when they arise, and how would you determine that these blocks, if made, were done in a preventative measure and not a punitive measure?

A: Hi Oshwah, I think policies like civility and no personal attack are requirements for all editors- experienced and inexperienced. We are here to build an encyclopedia and so must assume good faith in dealing with editors. Any kind of harassment or insulting and condescending comments is disruptive for the project and should not be tolerated. To answer your question, I would like to discuss with the involved experienced editor and properly warn them about their behaviour. I don't want to block someone immediately unless their behaviour falls under zero tolerance. I want to make sure that they understand where they are wrong and why their attitude is not acceptable by the community and could lead to blocking. If they have continued with the same conduct even after sufficient warnings and discussion, I will carefully analyse the situation and block the editor temporarily from editing. Again, the length of the block would depend on the situation- it could be 72 hrs, or a week, but should be enough for them to reflect on their behaviour. If the problem lies with two experienced editors accusing each other and being uncivil over an extended period, then that is again problematic. If proper discussion and warnings to both fail to work, an interaction ban may be imposed. If the problem is arising due to some content dispute on a specific article, then the involved editors may be additionally subjected to a topic ban. But again, blocking/IBAN/TBAN are last resorts and I personally feel discussion should be used first to educate the editors, who are ultimately here to volunteer, and help them contribute productively. --Ashleyyoursmile! 10:00, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

Discussion

• Links for Ashleyyoursmile: Ashleyyoursmile (talk · contribs · deleted · count · AfD · logs · block log · lu · rfar · spi)
• Edit summary usage for Ashleyyoursmile can be found here.

---

Please keep discussion constructive and civil. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review their contributions before commenting.

Support

1. Support Still, Great! JaiPogo0123 (Talk to me) 02:40, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
2. As co-nom Barkeep49 (talk) 15:16, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
3. Seems competent enough, +1 from me. GeneralNotability (talk) 15:17, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

   though now that their username's explanation involves Justin Bieber, I may need to reconsider... GeneralNotability (talk) 18:39, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

   Right? Gives you pause. —valereee (talk) 01:22, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

4. Support I think that Ashleyyoursmile would be a great admin.StarshipSLS (Talk), (My Contributions) 15:27, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
5. I've worked with Ashleyyoursmile before, and am confident that they can be trusted with the tools. Good luck :-) Pahunkat (talk) 15:29, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
6. Support To steal a phrase from an eminent functionary, "not a jerk, has a clue". ƒirefly ( t · c ) 15:31, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
7. SupportEN-Jungwon 15:31, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
8. Support — Impressive content creation. Equally impressive anti-vandalism work, where I have ran into edit conflicts with them probably a dozen times. — The Most Comfortable Chair 15:33, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
9. Support as nominator. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 15:41, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
10. Support per nomination. Seems like a good fit. ~Awilley (talk) 15:52, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
11. Support - my interactions with them have been positive. No reason to doubt their ability. Anarchyte (talk • work) 15:53, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
12. Support — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 15:54, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
13. Support I've seen their work and am impressed, and I cannot thank them enough for fighting vandalism on music articles. I knew it was only a matter of time. ResPM (T🔈 🎵C) 15:55, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
14. Support Great anti-vandalism work! AnApple47 (talk) 16:02, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
15. Support as Ashleyyoursmile has shown a good track record of editing, and would also benefit from admin privileges. Bibeyjj (talk) 16:05, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
16. Support No reason to be concerned and shows great potential to be a valued admin. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 16:10, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
17. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 16:12, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
18. Support Trusted user, demonstrates a need for the tools -- Asartea ^{Talk | Contribs} 16:17, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
19. Support - demonstrated content creation ability + demonstrated good judgment in various areas, including some that can grow contentious + willingness to participate in administrative tasks = an easy call here. Go Phightins! 16:23, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
20. I process Ashley's AIV reports. --Izno (talk) 16:24, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
21. Support Looks good. — csc^-1 16:28, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
22. —Kusma (t·c) 16:34, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
23. Support - Could use the tools and no reason to think they'd be abused. Absent evidence to the contrary, I'm happy to support. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 16:36, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
24. Support: brilliant content and maintenance work, thoroughly capable and no temperament concerns. I've worked with them on reviews a couple of times and have always enjoyed doing so. — Bilorv (talk) 16:47, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
25. Support Seems like a well experienced editor with a concious mind 🐲 ꯂꯨꯋꯥꯪ ^{ꯋꯥ ꯍꯥꯏꯐꯝ (talk)} 16:52, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
26. Support: clear support, with no hesitation or reservations whatsoever. Very fair, from what I've seen. Would make a great admin. Johnnie Bob (talk) 16:55, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
27. Support We haven't crossed paths before but seems to be a highly capable, well-rounded Wikipedian. I'm sure they'll do fine with the tools – thank you for volunteering, Ashleyyoursmile! – Joe (talk) 16:56, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
28. Support I feel comfortable with Ashley as an admin. –♠Vami_IV†♠ 17:00, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
29. Support - Ashleyyoursmile does excellent work with vandalism, and shows good judgement. Magnolia677 (talk) 17:09, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
30. Support Good stats, has clue & tact, trust the noms, and it will be nice to have another active admin on music AfDs who knows their stuff. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 17:10, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
31. Support. I have often seen Ashley reporting to UAA. It is chronically backlogged so more Admin help there is welcome. ಮಲ್ನಾಡಾಚ್ ಕೊಂಕ್ಣೊ (talk) 17:11, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
32. Support, WP:NOBIGDEAL. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 17:14, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
33. Support Fab content creation, they've achieved a great deal in a short time. Plus with Richtie AND Barkeep as noms, that's a rousing endorsement. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 17:22, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
34. Support Their reports at UAA are consistently accurate and easy to assess. I was not familiar with their content work until now, but the three GAs mentioned are all well written and well referenced. As a grandfather who loves to read to my granddaughter, The Fate of Fausto was a great find. A well rounded candidate. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 17:33, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
35. I thought that AYS seemed relatively new, but then I looked and realized I was being an idiot, and they were just relatively new to areas I frequent. If 1.5 years, 33k+ edits, content creation (including good and featured work), solid anti-vandalism work, and interacting politely with others isn't enough, I don't really know what would be. I don't want to give too much oxygen to the (currently) lone oppose, nor come down too hard on them. But I feel compelled to say that the issue there might be worth a talk page message, or (at very worst) a comment in the neutral section, but if every candidate gets opposed because of doing something imperfectly once - or, potential admin candidates see others getting opposed because of doing something imperfectly once - then perhaps that's a reason why there are so few RFA's. --Floquenbeam (talk) 17:35, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
36. Support per nom.--Berig (talk) 17:49, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
37. Support. Every time I've seen this candidate's name at the various admin noticeboards, especially WP:AIV, they've been exceptionally helpful. This may come as a surprise for some of the old-timers here, but at this point, this project could actually use more admins who are active in the counter-vandalism areas of the project because of chronic backlogs at AIV, RFPP, and UAA—the exact areas in which this user intends to participate. They clearly have sufficient experience outside of just counter-vandalism, as exemplified by their quality content work in Q2, and a stroll through their user talk page demonstrates maturity, collegiality, and a willingness to help new users. I suspect Ashleyyoursmile is the kind of administrator this project sorely needs more of at the moment. Mz7 (talk) 18:10, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
38. Support. Thank you for volunteering to help administer this project. -- Tavix ^(talk) 18:12, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
39. Support per noms, and I consider Ashleyyoursmile to be a thoughtful and thorough participant in AfD discussions. Beccaynr (talk) 18:21, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
40. Support Impressions have always been good. Also, not enough admins currently. Ceoil (talk) 18:23, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
41. Support A well-rounded candidate with a good blend of content work and experience in "adminny" areas. I don't understand the oppose at all. Why is it necessary to relist and ping everyone if you revert your AfD close? P-K3 (talk) 18:27, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
42. Support They tackle vandalism fast and write good articles. -BonsMans1 𝑇𝐶 18:34, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
43. Sure. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 18:37, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
44. Support good vandalism work, content creation, can be trustworthy with the mop. ɴᴋᴏɴ21 ❯❯❯ talk 18:42, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
45. Support - nominations are convincing, a review of their contributions shows their commitment to the project, and overall seems like a stellar editor. One quibble - the user's talk page is approaching 300 sections and it doesn't seem to be getting archived. It's a pet peeve of mine, but hardly a big deal. (Note: struck out this part of my comment as it was a technical issue and not a choice by the user.) Happy to support. Ganesha811 (talk) 18:47, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
46. Support - Very good anti-vandalism work, and good content work as well. I'm sure they'll be of great help at the noticeboards. ~ANM🐁 T·C 18:51, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
47. - Astrophobe (talk) 18:54, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
48. Support. Level-headed with a great track record of anti-vandalism work that would benefit from the use of admin tools. ‑‑Volteer1 (talk) 18:58, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
49. Support Excellent anti-vandalism work. NonsensicalSystem^(error?)_(.log) 19:04, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
50. Support. Meets my minimums, has always appeared pleasant and collegial. Ifnord (talk) 19:06, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
51. Support - Excellent anti-vandal work and an all around experienced user... plus we need more admins. - ZLEA _T\^C 19:13, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
52. Support on the grounds that I'm not familiar with their work, but I trust both their noms. SportingFlyer T·C 19:15, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
53. Support I only recently became aware of Ashley, and upon review I found top-tier content editing, thoughtful commenting, and a very nice person to interact with. I'm very glad to see this RfA. sorry for the minor unplesantness found below — Ched (talk) 19:23, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
54. Support No reason to think they'd misuse the tools. FeydHuxtable (talk) 19:27, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
55. Support I see her on RCP occasionally and think that she wouldbe perfect. LOMRJYO^{(talk•contrib)} 19:30, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
56. Support Great anti-vandalism work and great content creation too. --Ferien (talk) 19:32, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
57. support -- -Shakil Hosen ^Talk 19:41, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
58. Support – Yup! That's what we're looking for. Favonian (talk) 19:46, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
59. Support - Net positive. Nova Crystallis (Talk) 19:49, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
60. Support, I do not see any issues.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:50, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
61. Support A competent editor and I have no concerns about them misusing the tools. --Trialpears (talk) 19:54, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
62. Support Great anti-vandalism work! --Vacant0 (talk) 20:05, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
63. Support net positive.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 20:11, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
64. Support. I agree with views previously expressed by others. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 20:15, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
65. Support - clearly competent, great content creator and I've only ran into a few times, but temperament is exemplary. Great candidate and we should be looking for similar candidates to run Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 20:22, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
66. Support this competent and unfailingly civil editor's request for the tools. —valereee (talk) 20:29, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
67. Support passes my criteria. —pythoncoder (talk | contribs) 20:39, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
68. Support, I've seen this editor around and they generally are competent and pleasant. A spot check of contributions shows no cause for concern. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 20:43, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
69. Support. Happy to see this candidate put forward. Good attitude, good history, good contributions. I see little downside in trusting this editor with additional tools. BusterD (talk) 20:50, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
70. Support They'll be a great admin. DanCherek (talk) 20:54, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
71. Support – Well qualified. EdJohnston (talk) 21:00, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
72. Support - anyone who Barkeep noms is a yes from me. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 21:06, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
73. Support. I've seen their work and I think they will use the tools responsibly and to Wikipedia's benefit. 331dot (talk) 21:28, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
74. Trusted, competent. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:53, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
75. Support As someone who is arguably partly responsible for this RfA I am of course happy to support it. CommanderWaterford (talk) 22:04, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
76. Support — Checked contributions; can be trusted with "the mop". --littleb2009 (talk page) 22:20, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
77. Support, prolific editor, trustable with the mop. --JackFromWisconsin (talk | contribs) 22:26, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
78. No concerns. — The Earwig (talk) 22:50, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
79. Support, looks fine. EpicPupper (talk) 22:58, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
80. Support, prodigious vandal fighter. I think I see their username more than any other reverting unconstructive edits on my watchlist, and always even headed about warnings. POLITANVM ^talk 23:08, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
81. Support — I’ve worked with them and I can say for a fact that they do a stellar job. They know what they are doing, they are honest, fight undisclosed paid editing, fights vandalism. I could go on and on but I have made my point. Celestina007 (talk) 23:19, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
82. Strongly Support – Excellent candidate, with outstanding contributions. They have also done a decent amount of anti-vandalism work. I think that they'll make a great admin. LightandDark2000 🌀 (talk) 00:41, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
83. Support - excellent anti-vandalism work, I'm happy to support. -- LuK3 (Talk) 00:44, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
84. Support - Does anti-vandalism work and brought articles to FA or GA status. They also do some other things which make it perfect for an admin. SVcode(Talk) 01:17, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
85. Support User can be trusted. NASCARfan0548 ↗ 01:19, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
86. Support It is self-evident how this candidate, Ashleyyoursmile, has tackled persistent vandalism head-on, so it's of no surprise that they been awarded the anti-vandalism barnstar.—SpookiePuppy (talk) 01:49, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
87. Support We need more admins. Looks fine to me. Mosesheron (talk) 02:18, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
88. Support enthusiastically. KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 03:26, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
89. Support, no concerns. BD2412 T 03:31, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
90. Support per noms, Izno, Floq, etc. In response to Willbb234's concerns, I note that six-months of project space experience is sufficient experience, especially when the editor spent the year before that writing content. Ashley has done more work in six months at AIV and related pages than many admins have done in a decade. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 03:37, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
91. A fellow Barkeepian and Ritchiean candidate! – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 03:57, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
92. Support, trustworthy and good work all around eviolite (talk) 04:02, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
93. Support. Pamzeis (talk) 04:11, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
94. Support. Link20XX (talk) 04:15, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
95. Weak support: I'm a bit divided here. Nowhere near divided enough to land in neutral, let alone the ludicrous oppose column, but enough to feel the need to qualify my statement and write without brevity. I feel Ashley's answers to the questions are quite canned, particularly Q6, which reads to me as just restating the CSD without discussing personal views, planned application, or the substantial range of views (that have been extensively discussed lately) that people can hold on G5's application and exceptions. Q8 similarly feels rather boilerplate, a simple description of "policy says we should only block when A and unblock when B" without considering why a user might be angry and what an angry unblock request means to the person making it -- let alone that "angry unblock request" can mean anything from a recalcitrant vandal trying to screw up the system to a newbie being bitten relentlessly by shoot-first-ask-questions-later applications of rules to an irascible established editor having a bad day. Although I have qualms about the canned nature of the responses, I think the project would be better to have Ashley as an admin than not, and even moreso I think the project would be better with people like Ashley encourage to run RfA than not -- I can think of two more DYK regulars I think should've run yesterday, and seeing Ashley sail through, as I expect her to, is what would encourage people like them to take the plunge. I think Ashley should have the mop, and as she wields it, she should take particular thought to her communication and self-expression. I hope to see many more RfAs from prolific content creators, and I hope to support as many as I can. I'm happy she's doing well here, and I hope she can take these concerns to heart without getting distracted by things like the frankly ridiculous oppose statements. (Inexperience, really?) Vaticidalprophet 04:22, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

    Reaffirming both the support and its caveats in light of Q15. A bad answer could have moved me to neutral, but I wasn't particularly expecting a Ritchie nom to give a bad (read as 'clearly unsympathetic to the complainant') answer. It doesn't really assuage my concerns about boilerplate, though. I was worried I was signalling too clearly the thing I expected to be picked up on -- that the article the complainant was so upset about permanently losing, having not saved anywhere, wasn't actually permanently lost and could be returned to him via e.g. email so long as he realized it wasn't appropriate to reupload to Wikipedia -- but it was apparently missed, and so the other guy here would remain under the impression he'd permanently lost hours of work that might have been appropriately repurposed into, say, a short story. I was also heavily signalling that the complainant was a child -- that is, someone who needs to be treated gently, who might not understand having PAGs written with the assumption they'll be read by an educated and verbose subset of adults dumped on him, and who probably isn't going to be converted into a productive Wikipedia editor right now. Rather, it's a matter of whether someone like that becomes a productive Wikipedia editor in a few years or if they're left long-term with the impression it's a place that randomly deletes stuff with explanations they don't understand. The question was based -- quite dramatized and with the kid made more parodic -- on an experience of my own around age 10-11, and the way I was treated at the time feels, with an understanding of Wikipedia's internal culture, like a case of people failing to understand how to communicate with someone well outside the site's expected remit. Speedy deletion is for us routine maintenance, but for a lot of people it's their work suddenly vanishing, and it's important to communicate well across that bridge. Vaticidalprophet 13:01, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

96. Support: seems competent and trustworthy; no issues here. Tol | Talk | Contribs 04:53, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
97. Support user has been an editor for almost 18 months and has performed approximately 26,000 of their 33,000 edits in the past 6 months or so, indicating a deep engagement with the project. I believe they could help out in administrative areas requiring attention, and am willing to place my trust in the hands of someone with such experience in Wikipedia <3 Folly Mox (talk) 05:00, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
98. Support TheBirdsShedTears (talk) 06:05, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
99. Support. Looks like an excellent candidate. Best of luck. –Novem Linguae (talk) 06:13, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
100. Support, trustworthy and competent. - Ïvana (talk) 06:36, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
101. Support. I've encountered Ashley in many places on Wikipedia in spite of my growing inactivity on enwiki; I'm sure Ashley will be brilliant as a sysop. All the best! JavaHurricane 06:48, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
102. Support good work. Dam222 🌋 (talk) 07:05, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
103. Support Seen 'em around, no concerns, safe pair of hands. GirthSummit _(blether) 07:20, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
104. Support, precious and trusted --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:35, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
105. Support - thanks for volunteering! Levivich ^harass/_hound 07:51, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
106. Support Seen them around doing good for the wiki, acknowledging their mistakes, coping with the vandals' pushback. Ashley will make good use of the mop. Cabayi (talk) 08:34, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
107. Support Seems to be competent, and more importantly, a decent person. Exactly the type of person that should be an admin. Gaelan 💬✏️ 08:39, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
108. Support Why not? -FASTILY 08:46, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
109. Support --Minorax (talk) 08:54, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
110. Support - no concerns. GiantSnowman 08:58, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
111. Support best! VV 09:09, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
112. Support looks great — Berrely • ^Talk∕_Contribs 09:14, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
113. Support being an admin is absolutely no big deal at all, anyone is capable of doing it and there's seldom any real risk to it. So happy to support. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 09:40, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
114. Support I see nothing of concern raised so far, and candidate ticks all the right boxes, so happy to support. Good luck to you!  — Amakuru (talk) 11:07, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
115. Support - Happy with this. Deb (talk) 11:20, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
116. Support, The user makes tremendous efforts to make Wikipedia free from Vandalism._signed, Iflaq ^(talk) 11:46, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
117. Weak Support I agree very heavily with @Vaticidalprophet:'s !vote in both reasoning and scale. The candidate's stated interest in CSD makes me expect a more in-depth answer to the relevant questions. G5, for example, specifically allows for exemptions - above and beyond that of IAR. I've unblocked a couple of angry individuals, one "common" category are those who are mistargeted. Being an admin necessitates nuance. Nosebagbear (talk) 12:27, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
118. Support Experienced and very active user, and no obvious issues.Jackattack1597 (talk) 13:08, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
119. Support Jianhui67 ^T★C 15:35, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
120. Support Have seen this editor around, seems good. I'm happy with the answers to the questions, especially the answer to Q7. Also we need help in the areas where the candidate plans to participate. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 16:34, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
121. Support I think it is important to support volunteers who offer to do the generally dull and thankless work of the admin role. I understand the concerns about lack of experience but we can all grow into a role and as this candidate is open to recall, we have some recourse if things don’t work out. I don’t think any candidate ought to explain why they ‘need’ the tools now: they don’t personally need them - the project needs them. Mccapra (talk) 17:33, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
122. Support My few interactions with this editor had all been positive. Corachow (talk) 17:34, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
123. Support I have had nothing but good interactions with the candidate, a review indicates my experience is indicative of their broader behaviour and activity. Clearly competent and trustworthy Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 18:00, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
124. 'Support I'm confident based on my own experience with this user that they would make a fine admin. They are a regular reporter at UAA and the reports are always on-point. I also recently reviewed their request for the autopatrolled permission and was impressed when reviewing their content contribs. Looking forward to seeing them on the admin side at UAA to help with the regular backlogs there. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:34, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
125. Support. We've been complaining about RfA drought, haven't we? This is an experienced candidate with good answers to questions. I particularly appreciated the point about disengagement from conflict. Thank you for volunteering. Deryck C. 19:40, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
126. Support. I look forward to Ashley's help at AIV. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 20:33, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
127. Support Seen them around quite a bit. Well-rounded so can be of help across different areas, including the chronically backlogged noticeboards such as AIV, etc. S0091 (talk) 21:03, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
128. Support Although I've had limited interaction with the candidate, I don't think they will abuse the tools. Miniapolis 22:33, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
129. Support Candidate has said that they will be open to recall under that standard offer. That's really all I need to know -- saved time! After all, in the unlikely chance there's a problem, we can look at various ways of addressing that -- recall being a last resort, but necessary to have. Not only that, but in the vanishingly unlikely chance that the candidate gets too full of themself -- not totally unheard of, people change -- we can maybe make them think "uh-uh... maybe I better cool it." Herostratus (talk) 20:54, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
130. Support—Eminently qualified. Kurtis ^(talk) 00:11, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
131. Support Never interacted with the candidate, but so no reason to believe they wouldn't make a good admin. Happy to support. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:14, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

     With regard to Q8, I always give extra points to someone whose unblock contains an example of the very thing that they were blocked for in the first place eg. "How dare you block me for making legal threats! I'm going to sue Wikimedia!" Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:52, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

132. Support - don't see any reason to oppose. Guettarda (talk) 00:27, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
133. Support: Looks OK for me.----Rdp060707|talk 01:28, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
134. Support Tolly4bolly 01:53, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
135. Support - no concerns. --Bduke (talk) 06:34, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
136. Support, I have seen Ashleyyoursmile around on UAA, AIV, and CSD. They have a cool head and could help with the backlog that often builds up.--Eostrix  (^{🦉 hoot} _hoot🦉) 07:42, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
137. Support No concerns, has been consistently helpful and sane. Acroterion (talk) 07:45, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
138. Support Trustworthy and positive interactions. Very happy to support. Fieryninja (talk) 08:31, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
139. Support. Ran into Ashley at the recent changes. Competent, helpful and offers to contribute to areas in need of additional admins. JBchrch (talk) 09:55, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
140. Support. Good editor. Good interactions with editors. Ashley even thoroughly checked some of new pages. KittenKlub (talk) 10:48, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
141. Support - absolutely! Thorough...thoughtful...open-minded...knowledgeable...I can't say enough about this candidate to do her justice. Atsme 💬 📧 11:26, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
142. Support. Her answers to some earlier questions were lackluster, but after seeing more of her writing in response to later questions, I'm not particularly concerned. Having her as an admin around here would certainly be a net positive for the project. Also, glad to see newer users stepping up for RfA. Elli (talk | contribs) 12:58, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
143. Support Seems qualified for admin tools, good luck! Flalf^Talk 13:02, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
144. Support - Very responsible editor.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:15, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
145. Support - My three criteria (keeping WP:NOBIGDEAL in mind) are that 1) the user isn't a jerk 2) the user has a demonstrable requirement for the tools (by having shown involvement in matters which might require the tools) and 3) the user has shown they can be trusted with the tools. As far as I can see, from the answers to the questions, their edits to places like AfD, AIV, and so on, Ashleyyoursmile unquestionably meets all of them. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 13:27, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
146. Support - having read the 7 oppose and 3 neutral votes, I do not find the issues they raise compelling. (I mean, some of the answers do feel a bit canned, but in the absence of any substantive concern, who cares?) --JBL (talk) 13:36, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
147. Support - Net positive, and oppose / neutral comments aren’t particularly persuasive. —-Jack Frost (talk) 14:49, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
148. Support will be a net-positive to the project. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 14:53, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
149. Support A net positive and very considerate. Good luck! --Aknell4 (talk • contribs) 15:15, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
150. Support — I've seen Ashley around and can attest to her good judgement. Thanks, EDG 543 ^{(message me)} 17:19, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
151. Support- As has been said, I've observed Ashley's work and I have no concerns whatsoever giving the mop. Good luck!   Aloha27  talk  17:49, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
152. Support—User has markedly more experience than I did when I became an administrator, so I'm not persuaded by the WP:NOTYET opposes. Q11 does demonstrate something short of perfect judgment, I think, but my threshold to support RFAs is lower than "invariably perfect judgment". Steve Smith (talk) 18:10, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
153. Support Familiar username which does not evoke misgivings. Supported by people I trust. No reasons found not to support. · · · Peter Southwood ^(talk): 18:40, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
154. Support - I've seen this user around doing the right things. No issues here. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 19:10, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
155. Support - Excellent candidate, the type of person we need in Wikipedia! Keresluna (talk) 20:15, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
156. Support - Great editor, definitely deserves adminship. 🌀CycloneFootball71🏈 |sandbox 20:23, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
157. Support Very good candidate, noticed their work around UAA and AIV, another admin interested in those areas would be a great benefit JW 1961 ^Talk 20:51, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
158. Support I've seen Ashleyyoursmile around Wikipedia too many times to count. While some people may be concerned with her being a newer user, I think that she has the proper judgement needed to be a good admin. In short, she's a net positive. We should have more editors and admins like her. codingcyclone ^advisories/_damages 21:43, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
159. Support. I don't see anything to oppose here. Some opposes seem to be candidate made a mistake once so I can't support, candidate is too new so I can't support, answers to questions are perfect so IDontLikeIt, etc. I made lots of mistakes after I started editing and got what a steep learning curve gives anybody who doesn't give up: gains in skills and experience. I was given the tools after editing for barely one year. The fundamental question is always: will the candidate protect the encyclopedia? I honestly don't expect anything terrible to happen if this candidate becomes an administrator. – Athaenara ✉ 21:55, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
160. Support. Good editor, experienced with anti-vandalism. gobonobo ^{+ c} 23:05, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
161. Strong Support Why didn't anyone tell me about this RFA? She will be an amazing administrator. She is one of the most professional anti-vandals I have ever come across. The people opposing do not make strong arguments because they do not provide any proof that she will misuse the tools. Scorpions13256 (talk) 00:22, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
162. Support I'm late Moneytrees🏝️^{Talk/CCI guide} 01:47, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
163. Support, while keeping in mind the reasons listed above by Vati and Nosebagbear, with a side of WP:NOBIGDEAL. Ashley is an incredibly active user (our paths have glanced off of each other when it comes to music GAs), and has a demonstrated need for the tools. Yes, many of the answers have been blanket reiterations of Wikipedia policy, but I don't think that's the worst thing. The way I see it, nobody is perfect, there's going to be a learning curve associated with any jump in permissions, and we should be treating it as a given that there will be bumps along the way. When those bumps come, an honest mistake that was rooted in the editor or admin's understanding of Wiki policy will be easier to work around than someone going with their gut, so to speak. Ashley clearly has a strong grip on the scaffolding, and that should make the hands-on work esaier to grasp. Kncny11 ^(shoot) 05:34, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
164. Support: (Moved from Oppose): Related to events of candidates Answer 3. Call it a pet hate of mine but AfD's are fairly stressful and re-listing a closed AfD without making an explicit visible re-list entry about why is a no-no.[1] I would not expect any other part of the discussion to be changed to alter history and a close/re-open is a significant part of that history and discussion. I have big issues with immutable discussion logs being changed; and a silent re-open due to an off-AfD discussion is without an explicit re-list is a problem to me, and this was 48 hours later, albeit I'd want a relist 48s later. I know its in the edit summary but I don't expect to look at an edit summary to determine the course of an AfD. Sufficient for early !keep voters to have this off their watchlist. I fully support the candidate's decision to choose to relist (without looking at the strength of such a reason). I know admins have disagreed with me on this point but I feel strongly about it. However I do wish the candidate best of luck generally, note they have quality nominators, and from other comments look safe with the tools. While concerned about one direction but will not hold that against them. Djm-leighpark (talk) 16:45, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

     Noting a neutral !vote and answer to Q11 and related article I note someone who (a) knows importance of using trans-title in foreign cites (which should be mandatory IMO) and has recognised the importance of ensuring archives are in place for their sources rather than leaving in laps of the bots to prevent link-rot. These pet-hates neutralize my other pet hate so moving to support. Thankyou. Djm-leighpark (talk) 05:56, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

     • Extended discussion moved to talk —valereee (talk) 21:26, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

165. Support I've seen them a few times when I'm doing anti-vandalism work, and I am always impressed by their ability to recognize potential vandalism accurately and deal with possible vandals fairly. I remember checking out their user page out of curiosity, and I was impressed to see that they've worked on raising several articles to "good" status too. Solid work on both the vandalism and content creation sides of Wikipedia seems like a good sign to me! palindrome§ǝɯoɹpuᴉןɐd 07:28, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
166. Support.TheSkinsAdded (talk) 11:23, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
167. Support. I only know the nominee from the few times our paths have crossed at DYK but their maintenance and content work looks convincing. Happy to support. Modussiccandi (talk) 11:40, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
168. Support. Tenure is a bit short but this editor has displayed the competence required for admin tools.--🌀Locomotive207-talk🌀 (Formerly Kieran207) 13:42, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
169. Support. Impressed with candidate's anti-vandal work. Daniel Case (talk) 16:44, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
170. Support While I haven't directly interacted with Ashleyyoursmile as my topic interests are different from theirs, I am very impressed by the good judgement they have demonstrated in the admin noticeboard areas. I also see that this user has generally kept their cool and has never to my knowledge bitten anyone. I'm not afraid of giving this user the mop. Looking forward to a new addition to the janitorial team! BrxBrx(talk)^{(please reply with {{SUBST:re|BrxBrx}})} 17:07, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
171. Support, as wikipedia needs new and young admins. Yay! my first RfA !vote. -- Parnaval (talk) 17:14, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
172. Support, very impressed with the answers, above (e.g., #21). Will make a good sysop.  JGHowes  ^talk 17:24, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
173. Support - Seems fine. Why not? ♟♙ (talk) 18:03, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
174. Support - I think that despite the blanket answers and concerns brought up by Vati, Ashleyyoursmile will learn as she goes with the mop. I don't have any concerns, and I believe that the discussions have been productive. Sennecaster (What now?) 19:45, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
175. Support - I haven't interacted directly with this editor, but I've seen their work on various venues on enwiki. They seem very competent and have an excellent temperament. Aoi (青い) (talk) 21:21, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
176. Support -- Ajraddatz (talk) 21:53, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
177. Support -- a very courteous and polite editor, will do well with the mop. --Whiteguru (talk) 22:03, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
178. Support. Ashleyyoursmile is a reasonable, experienced, and courteous editor, and I have faith that being an admin won't corrupt her like it did me and so many others on this list. No, EdJohnston, not you. Drmies (talk) 22:19, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
179. Support - some of the answers are perhaps a bit milquetoast, but Ashley has a history both of good contributions and of good judgment, which really is all that matters. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 22:59, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
180. Support: None of the answers stick out as a reason not to, and it's WP:NOBIGDEAL. Seems to have been doing good anti-vandal work, and I think that the project would be made better if the user would be able to act autonomously in making anti-vandal enforcement decisions while an administrator. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 23:25, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
181. Support, it will be good to have more admins who are not members of the "Old Boys Club", so to speak. Devonian Wombat (talk) 23:56, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
182. Support Can be trusted with the tools. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:06, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
183. Support Looks like user can be trusted, and do proficient anti-vandalism work. -BriLila (talk) 00:32, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
184. Support. Candidate seems sound and question 23, in passing, is silly. If you're sorry about saying something, then you wouldn't be saying it. Airbornemihir (talk) 02:54, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
185. Support, candidate appears to have clue. A number of people have cited issues with question 11, but this holds no bearing on the candidate's capability to be an admin as it relates to normal editing. In any event, perfection is not a prerequisite for admins. Stifle (talk) 09:13, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
186. Support. Solid anti-vandalism work, sure they will make good use of the tools. To-the-point answers drawing on relevant policy seems like a positive to me. I'd far rather see that than reams of waffle. the wub "?!" 10:18, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
187. Support polite, appears to be self reflective, appropriately cautious about areas of experience, has a clue. Likes Bieber, but nobody's perfect. --Find bruce (talk) 11:14, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

     Find bruce, wait - hang on here. THIS Bieber? Oh man ... I might have to rethink my support now. — Ched (talk) 14:04, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

188. Support -- It is a yes from me. -- Dolotta (talk) 13:57, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
189. Support per noms and my own experience with the candidate. Has CLUE, interacts well with others, and although I support NOBIGDEAL having a demonstrated need for the tools is a plus. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 15:44, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
190. Support in general as their edits & interactions that I've seen have been good, but also per the answer to the followup portion of 6. Have just been in the middle of one of those complicated G5s and appreciated Asheley's nuanced take. StarM 19:52, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
191. Support Great anti-vandalism efforts. Appears knowledgeable of policies and procedures. Pleasant and polite attitude. Confident Ashley will excel as an admin. --DB1729 (talk) 21:17, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
192. Support Excellent candidate, would love to have Ashley on board! — Sagotreespirit (^talk) 22:31, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
193. Support - A trustworthy candidate with the right temperment; thoughtful responses to the questions. Would make a good administrator! Netherzone (talk) 23:29, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
194. Support - Committed contributor with judgement.--agr (talk) 00:51, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
195. Support due to a) the respect I have for the nominators and b) how the candidate has kept their cool while being personally attacked innumerable times by vandals & trolls. Many editors would have retired after becoming such a consistent target but you kept up with the work. It makes me think that you will be able to handle the challenges dished out to you as an admin while remaining civil. While some evaluators focus on AfD participation or content creation, I think one of the most crucial aspects of adminship is being able to cordially communicate with editors when problems arise. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:59, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
196. Support Yep go for it! :-) Good Luck! --つがる Talk to つがる:) 🍁 01:25, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
197. Daniel (talk) 03:28, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
198. I browsed Ashley's user talk history and have the same opinion as Liz. — Wug·a·po·des​ 04:04, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
199. Support - will help even more with tools in vandalism clean up. Carlosguitar ^{(Yes Executor?)} 08:58, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
200. Support I have seen this user dealing with vandalism and disruptive edits. Looks fine and has the potential. Wario-Man ^talk 09:41, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
201. Support I have seen her doing tons of anti-vandalism works, and that is more than enough. As an admin I hoped that she will work beyond those scopes and work more in more contentious areas. Also knowledgeable of policies and procedures.SunDawn (talk) 10:27, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
202. Support I have also seen this user doing anti-vandal work. Definitely deserves adminship. -Justiyaya (talk) 13:26, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
203. Support Sensible, helpful and very competent editor who will absolutely be a good admin. No hesitation. DBaK (talk) 15:53, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
204. Yes, yes! Opposes below seem to indicate a "too soon" objection, and that is a concern; however Liz pretty much said it all and well. This candidate will make a fine addition to an admin corps that needs good editors. P.I. Ellsworth  ed. ^put'r there 17:04, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
205. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 17:46, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
206. Would have co-nommed if I'd seen this earlier. I've worked closely with Ashley over the last few months and been very impressed. Glad I logged back in in-time to support, even if it's the last minute nad the result is not in doubt. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:56, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
207. Support LGTM --DannyS712 (talk) 20:04, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
208. Support. Fully qualified candidate. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:41, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
209. Support no issues with me ^Thanks,L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 23:22, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
210. Support wikiyouth per se should not be a barrier. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 01:15, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
211. Support I've come across her anti-vandalism work in the past, and she has always been decisive and collegial. She's also a good contributor in an area that always needs help. Clear support from me. Uses x (talk • contribs) 01:42, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
212. Support Definitely because Goldsztajn's supports. ─ The Aafī ^(talk) 03:18, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
213. Support Consistently has quality AIV reports; has my trust. Spencer^T•C 03:53, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
214. Support. Ultimately, Ashleyyoursmile seems like they would be able to handle the tools. ✗plicit 06:02, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
215. Support - I've seen plenty of good AIV reports from Ashleyyoursmile and have always been impressed with their work whenever I run into them. Definitely someone who'll make good use of admin tools. ~ mazca ^talk 11:26, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
216. Support - From what I have seen this is well deserved. They have attempted to answer every question and done so truthfully from their perspective. That is commendable. A precious and positive addition to the encyclopedia and I believe would make an outstanding admin. Ashley's contributions are faithful to the guidelines of Wikipedia and their work against vandalism is not only necessary but integral to the future of our shared work here. I am thrilled that will continue to operate in those areas. --ARoseWolf 14:19, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
217. Support per nom, good anti–vandalism work. MainPeanut (talk) 18:39, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
218. Support community has shown they support, and seeing no red flags I am happy to support. Preemptive congrats for gaining the tools. Dreamy Jazz ^{talk to me | my contributions} 21:03, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
219. Support While I've only seen Ashleyyoursmile's work in passing, reading the questions and answers above I am satisfied that she will make positive contributions as an admin. Though largely adherent to the word of policy, sometimes an impersonal approach is a good approach, and I would opine that having a variety of admins with different approaches is a general plus. Kingsif (talk) 22:35, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
220. Support. Looks fine, and the candidate has agreed to be open to recall. Tim Smith (talk) 01:22, 22 May 2021 (UTC)
221. Support Why not? LSGH (talk) (contributions) 09:59, 22 May 2021 (UTC)
222. Support per noms. I was wondering why there were so few RfAs while we've lost several admins as of late. Welcome to the janitor leagues. --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 13:32, 22 May 2021 (UTC)
223. Support - I do agree a bit with Vaticidalprophet, though. Reaper Eternal (talk) 14:21, 22 May 2021 (UTC)
224. Support Congrats, Ashley!! Sro23 (talk) 14:55, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

Oppose

# Oppose: (moved to support): Related to events of candidates Answer 3. Call it a pet hate of mine but AfD's are fairly stressful and re-listing a closed AfD without making an explicit visible re-list entry about why is a no-no.[2] I would not expect any other part of the discussion to be changed to alter history and a close/re-open is a significant part of that history and discussion. I have big issues with immutable discussion logs being changed; and a silent re-open due to an off-AfD discussion is without an explicit re-list is a problem to me, and this was 48 hours later, albeit I'd want a relist 48s later. I know its in the edit summary but I don't expect to look at an edit summary to determine the course of an AfD. Sufficient for early !keep voters to have this off their watchlist. I fully support the candidate's decision to choose to relist (without looking at the strength of such a reason). I know admins have disagreed with me on this point but I feel strongly about it. However I do wish the candidate best of luck generally, note they have quality nominators, and from other comments look safe with the tools. While concerned about one direction but will not hold that against them. Djm-leighpark (talk) 16:45, 15 May 2021 (UTC) #:::*Extended discussion moved to talk —valereee (talk) 21:26, 15 May 2021 (UTC) (Moved to support) Djm-leighpark (talk) 06:00, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

1. Oppose per answers to questions. Sorry, but I cannot support at this time. NYC Guru (talk) 22:18, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

   Could you be more specific? (For example, it would be helpful to me to know specifically which of the questions have answers that you find objectionable.) --JBL (talk) 22:37, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

2. Oppose user has been an editor for less than 18 months and has performed approximately 26,000 of their 33,000 edits in the past 6 months or so. The user has performed only 6,600 non-automated in the mainspace, equal to about 20% of their edit count. While I believe they could help out in administrative areas requiring attention, I am unwilling to place this kind of trust in the hands of someone with such little experience and time on Wikipedia (WP:NQY). Kind regards, Willbb234^Talk (please {{ping}} me in replies) 22:50, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
3. Oppose for now, WP:NOTYET there. While I appreciate their calm attitude, there is a certain lack of experience showing from their answers. Several answers avoid answering the question and instead resemble canned responses that quote general policies (Q6, Q8, Q13, Q15). The surprisingly low editing experience highlighted by Willbb234 right above is another worrisome aspect. I am open to reconsidering in 6 months' time, after the editor will hopefully have gained more experience in non-automated, non-canned participation in this complex project. — kashmīrī ^TALK 13:10, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
4. Oppose I'm concerned with many of the answers to questions, for reasons well expressed by Kashmiri and Cwmhiraeth. I'm especially worried about the answer to Q11 where the candidate states they use machine-translated sources when writing articles - particularly machine translations from Korean and Japanese, which are often very poor and riddled with errors. I appreciate the candidate's anti-vandalism and content work, but I don't feel ready to support their RfA at this time. Spicy (talk) 14:31, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

   Especially in the scope of Korean articles, using machine translation services are often unavoidable as domestic Korean sources most often contain more information than what international English sources put out, especially when trying to produce broad and in-depth coverage for GAs. Those translations, aside from awkward phrasing, still allow for the main ideas to be kept, so it is not so drastically inaccurate that it deems one unfit to make a good admin. ɴᴋᴏɴ21 ❯❯❯ talk 15:40, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

   Sorry, no information is better than inaccurate information.[3] If quality information is not available, it doesn't help the project at all to add machine translations. From an admin, I do expect attention to quality. — kashmīrī ^TALK 16:02, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

   Kashmiri, Per WP:RSUE, there has been no discussions of inaccuracy regarding the use of Korean-language sources in her articles. Using machine translations are acceptable in non-contentious topics as long as there are no reasonable doubts that the translation is accurate and the sources are appropriate. WP:KO/RS lists out all of the reliable and unreliable sources that have been deemed fit for the project, compiled by a consensus of editors over the past few years. There has been no assertion that quality has been compromised. ɴᴋᴏɴ21 ❯❯❯ talk 17:04, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

   Nkon, looking at Q11, I think the issue is not the quality of the information itself, but rather the quality of the text being produced in terms of whether it is coherent English. Sdrqaz (talk) 17:09, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

   Oppose I really like your counter-vandalism efforts, but I feel it is a little to early for you to have the mop. I feel the answers to the questions are restatements of policy, and while there is nothing wrong. I echo Will's concerns about not enough manual editing. NW1223 | Howl at me 01:10, 17 May 2021 (UTC) (restored and struck originally removed comment)

5. Oppose - It feels a bit too early and like others, it struck me how some of their answers seemed to be restatements of policy rather than the type of response i'd expect from an admin. Not opposed to reconsidering this candidate in the future, but I think there needs to be a bit more experience. -- Dane ^talk 04:28, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
6. Oppose Pledges to be open to recall are made ad captandum vulgus. Until recall is a binding procedure, and pledges to be open to recall are binding, the first and only step to recalling an admin is convincing them to resign, which is the first and only step to removing an admin in any circumstance except for RFAR. As such, all admins are equally open, and not open to recall. Hipocrite (talk) 11:30, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

   Just curious, what does all of that have to do with the suitability of the candidate for adminship? Johnnie Bob (talk) 14:43, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

   @Johnnie Bob: Possibly helpful, from the other currently running RfA: [4] --JBL (talk) 14:55, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

   A naked "pledge" to be open to recall either means the user in question makes pledges to things that they don't fully understand, or that they make pledges that they know are toothless in the exact instance they would be used. Either of those circumstances is disqualifying. Hipocrite (talk) 00:33, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

   Only were you to assume that those were the only two options, @Hipocrite:. Most would argue it's a false dichotomy. Many pledges are "toothless" in the sense that they cannot be externally enforced (otherwise they're more like contracts). Instead, they're compelled by the individual's sense of rightness and obligations. That necessitates neither a lack of understanding nor an issue with toothlessness - a third option. Of course, if you think that they're willing to deceive in order to pass an RfA that would certainly be grounds to oppose, and feeling they have a high chance of feeling that way now but changing their mind later could also be grounds, but neither of them was what was cited. Nosebagbear (talk) 08:25, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

Neutral

1. I recognize the name, saw polite conversation, good luck! InedibleHulk (talk) 07:42, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
2. I was wondering whether this user, how ever well-meaning, lacks the competence to be an administrator. There is the matter brought up by Vaticidalprophet in question 9 and the confusion in the answers to questions 6 and 8. There is also an apparent inability to archive his/her own talk page. The answer to question 1 does not show a need for the tools but seems to be saying "I would like to be an administrator, let's see, what might I do if granted the mop?" Cwmhiraeth (talk) 13:16, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

   Cwmhiraeth, The talk page archiving is my fault. I gave Ashley a copy/paste of my own settings, saying "use this", but forgot to change the counter so the archive numbering is all wrong. I've fixed it. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 13:32, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

   I'd like to take this opportunity to extol the benefits of manual archiving over bot-based archiving, due to the control you have over it. Sdrqaz (talk) 14:43, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

   I'm totally sold on the simplicity of one click archiving. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:37, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

   I can respect that but nothing beats the satisfaction of cut-and-paste! Sdrqaz (talk) 00:53, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

   If technical competence inserting templates is required for adminship someone should start Wikipedia:Requests for desysopping/Valereee now. I can't count how many times I've screwed up subst:. —valereee (talk) 18:23, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

   You're way too hard on yourself. Atsme 💬 📧 11:29, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

   Let's just say I'm 98th percentile for personal insight. :D —valereee (talk) 16:02, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

   This is the whole reason the template editor user right even exists. Too many admins were not able to reply to requests for edits to protected templates. The solution was not to make "good at template stuff" a prerequisite for adminship. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:14, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

3. Neutral. I came here wanting to support: after all, how many vandal-fighters with an interest in K-pop nominated by Barkeep can you find? But I can't shake my sense of unease following the answer to Q15 and I echo Vaticidalprophet's concerns in their entirety, although I've fallen in this column. The draft creator was probably a child, going off the 14 question marks and four exclamation marks. Given that the page was written in draftspace, the poor markup, grammar and spelling should not matter; draftspace is built for things that aren't polished. Since the hypothetical creator was agitated, reiterating the policies and guidelines would not have the desired effect. It may have been wiser to email the contents of that draft to them, with a note pointing out alternate outlets for their creativity.
   It's hard for newcomers to "break into" Wikipedia's culture and understand how it truly works, more so for a child. While the answer may have been sound in terms of application of policy, I expected something a little more. As the Prophet said in support no.94 – Speedy deletion is for us routine maintenance, but for a lot of people it's their work suddenly vanishing, and it's important to communicate well across that bridge. Given I fully expect Ashley to pass this RfA, I wish them the best as an administrator and I hope they can prove me wrong. – Sdrqaz (talk) 01:04, 17 May 2021 (UTC) modified 01:10, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

   @Sdrqaz: I agree that someone would ideally recognise that the draft is written by a young child, but not that a REFUND (even via email) is necessary. Some children are mature enough to contribute, but the ones that aren't have intractable CIR concerns (in the short-term) and if you tell someone "here's your work but don't put it back on Wikipedia" then it's a bit BEAN-like advice. I think that I would point them to Fandom or some other appropriate place (does even Fandom allow completely fabricated things though?), but not give them their work back to send the message "this is what happens when you try to write on Wikipedia—don't do it again". I'm not bothered by a young child having "wasted" a few hours of their time.

   Having them work at Fandom for a few years is actually the best way to get them to be a Wikipedia contributor in future, as they won't get scared off but will learn some relevant skills. But a child who likes hoaxes is an LTA-to-be if you let them get obsessive about re-entering content into Wikipedia. And for the record, I contributed at Fandom (then-Wikia) as a young child, joined Wikipedia in 2013, still as a child, and have been contributing (net-)positively since that date (IMO), so I've no vendetta against child editors. — Bilorv (talk) 12:01, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

   @Bilorv: Thanks for engaging. As feedback for the candidate, I didn't need there to be a refund, just an acknowledgement that this was probably a child in distress and how they'd deal with it. I respect and understand what you mean about beans and it's a fair assessment, but I guess I wanted a little more sympathy in Ashley's answer.

   I came at it with using a different perspective, weighing up risks: the kid's upset that their work is gone and all they care about at that point is getting it back. I feel that refusing a refund makes the "LTA-to-be" behaviour you talk about more likely: the child's loss may make them want to vandalise Wikipedia out of spite/anguish. Moreover, not all hoaxes are equal. I've nominated a fake biography of a serial killer but with the names swapped out and replete with references. The example in the question felt close to a "good-faith" hoax (if they even exist), like something a student may have come up when designing their own video game.

   Refusing a refund to make a point that hoaxes aren't acceptable, even after extracting assurances that they won't repost it to Wikipedia, feels unnecessarily punitive and leaves the young would-be editor with a bad taste in their mouths. Sdrqaz (talk) 09:46, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

   Yeah, it's a difficult choice to make and a reasonable perspective to have so I understand where you're coming from. — Bilorv (talk) 12:25, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

   I can't imagine a scenario where I'd be willing to give out my email address to someone who is abusing Wikipedia by adding hoax content. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:19, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

   I've seen some admins get around that with a link to Pastebin or similar websites, though that's a fair point. This'll probably haunt me, but not all hoaxes are terrible: I've CSD'd a draft about someone who invented time travel and had an IQ of 300 or something like that Sdrqaz (talk) 20:31, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

4. Neutral While I had come across their work in various music related articles and appreciate their work, I sadly have withhold my support vote primarily due to the response to Q11. If the facts which the non-English sources are used as supports for in the article in Q11 are more complex/complicated ones, I would have put my foot down and voted no. There are times where I had come across edits introducing machine-translated titles, that can be downright wrong, into non-English refs. The one that is highlighted here is not as egregious as what I saw before. However one would expect any editor using non-English references to be of some level of proficiency or familiarity with the language as it is the burden of that editor in verifying the information being introduced. At the very least, a manually (and yet understandable) translated title from the get-go would demonstrate that proficiency/familiarity of the language. – robertsky (talk) 03:37, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

General comments

• Could an administrator tell me what happened at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Lakshmi321? It seems like it was created by Ashley but subsequently deleted. Sdrqaz (talk) 20:38, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

  @Sdrqaz: It was opened under the wrong name (Lakshmi321 is a sock of Nsmutte). Ashley noticed the mistake after a couple of minutes and G7'd it to make a report at the existing SPI instead. – Joe (talk) 20:48, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

  Great, thanks Joe. Sdrqaz (talk) 20:50, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

• StarshipSLS, is there something you were looking for in Q5 that wasn't dealt with in the answer to Q1? —valereee (talk) 20:55, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

  @ValereeeI wanted to see what are his main goals. StarshipSLS (Talk), (My Contributions) 21:10, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

  @StarshipSLS, do you think the answer to Q1 tells you enough about that? If not, can you elaborate what you're looking for? —valereee (talk) 21:15, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

  @Valereee: What I am looking for is details about what things will be most important for that user. StarshipSLS (Talk), (My Contributions) 21:55, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

  @Valereee: Like is he going to focus on one thing more than another? StarshipSLS (Talk), (My Contributions) 22:09, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

  They've said: Since I’m a regular contributor to the Administrator intervention against vandalism (AIV) and Usernames for administrator attention (UAA) noticeboards, these are the two administrative areas where I intend to take part. I would also like to help out at the Requests for page protection (RfPP), where I have made some requests of protection, and assist in closing Articles for deletion discussions and deleting pages tagged under criteria for speedy deletion. I take part in Did you know and would be willing to build queues and promote hooks. Since the admin tools come with a lot of responsibility and ultimately, everyone is accountable for the actions they perform, I do not intend to take any administrative action without having proper knowledge and understanding of the relevant guidelines and policies. If that doesn't answer your question, please elaborate. It's they. —valereee (talk) 22:14, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

  @Valereee: I did not notice that. StarshipSLS (Talk), (My Contributions) 22:17, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

  No worries, easy mistake, striking it! —valereee (talk) 22:25, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

• I've asked a follow-up to my Q13 which I believe is relevant, although I've already hit my two question limit. I'm new to RfA, so if someone with more experience thinks it should be removed then feel free to remove it. Giraffer ^{(talk·contribs)} 17:15, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
• NightWolf1223, was there something that wasn't covered in the answer to Q14 that your Q17 is trying to get at? —valereee (talk) 00:14, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

  User:Valereee I didn't see that one, sorry. Can I remove it? NW1223 | Howl at me 00:21, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

  Wolf, I've struck that for you. Sdrqaz (talk) 00:50, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

• Absolutely not opposed to this, also not !voting one way or another; just saying this: my learned colleague's registration date of 2019-12-13 gives me slight jitters and makes me feel like an old hand (which I'm emphatically not!), and I wouldn't dream of requesting/accepting adminship for the foreseeable future, if indeed ever. I guess some people just mature faster than others — I mean, Napoleon was a young turk when he became First Consul, and that all went swimmingly... ;) --DoubleGrazing (talk) 12:15, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

  Many editors actually view this as a positive. One of the concerns that has been raised is that most of our admins started editing more than ten years ago and many longer than that, which means the admin corps may be aging. Someone who started editing in 2019 is unlikely to be 80. —valereee (talk) 16:22, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

• Yes! Ashley finally archived her talk page! Panini!^🥪 12:19, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
• I just wanted to mention (without calling-out any individuals) the concept that Ashley seems to be parroting what's said on policy pages in her response to questions as a reason to oppose. IMO, this is an indication that she knows where to look for answers, and she's able to understand what the policies tell us. While I'm sure there's a very few number of editors that can quote from memory - I think it is a positive attribute for someone to actually look and research before posting some "shoot from the hip" type of responses. For me this is a "net-positive", and a reason to Support rather than a reason to oppose. Just my 2 cents worth. — Ched (talk) 13:24, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

I was just thinking the exact same thing. I keep an eye on oppose votes, as maybe I missed something on my initial review. I am simply floored by an oppose vote which seems to be, "The candidate was asked about a policy and correctly answered it but since it looks too much like the policy I won't support it." The candidate should be lauded for getting it right. Ifnord (talk) 13:58, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

Same. I don't know why we'd require admin candidates to sound like they've been admins for ten years already. There's a reason this is an open-book test. —valereee (talk) 16:29, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

Mm, I also agree with this sentiment. I think the concerns that Vaticidalprophet expressed are fair—the answers to the questions could indeed have a bit more depth to them—but I have tremendous respect for the fact that he is still in support because he recognizes that these concerns do not disqualify Ashleyyoursmile from the toolset, but rather are useful things for them to keep in mind as they take on their additional responsibilities. We do not demand perfection of our admins—if we did, at best we would promote only one or two RfA candidates every year (and even that would require a loose definition of "perfection"). A lot of this stuff is learned on the job, through encountering new situations that you didn't encounter as a non-admin and observing or asking how other admins handle those situations. Mz7 (talk) 19:05, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

• I think a !vote was removed outright (rather than striking)? It looks like there's one oppose fewer than there used to be. Vaticidalprophet 00:53, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

  @Vaticidalprophet: see here. Sdrqaz (talk) 01:01, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

  I had gathered it was a change of vote, but so far as I'm aware those should be struck, not removed outright. Has that changed? Vaticidalprophet 01:08, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

  I don't think it's a huge deal but you are correct that per WP:REDACT it's best practice to strike rather than remove, to avoid confusion such as this. Presumably NightWolf1223 was unaware of this.P-K3 (talk) 21:14, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

  I didn't know that was a bad thing. Thank you for letting me know. NW1223 | Howl at me 21:18, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

• This is first time I am seeing a RfA happening. Also, I know a lot less policies than candidate, that's why I asked Q25. Is that question good and valid to ask here ? -- Parnaval (talk) 17:11, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

  @Parnaval, in general, unless a question is crucial to you deciding whether to support or not, or you think the answer to it would be crucial for others to make that decision, it's kind of irrelevant. Because RfA is extremely stressful for candidates, we try to minimize irrelevant questions. Thank you for asking. —valereee (talk) 19:14, 18 May 2021 ETA: since you've already voted, I'm going to assume your question is not crucial to your vote and strike it. Please let me know if you'd like me to unstrike. —valereee (talk) 23:00, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

  @Valereee:I agree my question doesn't have anything to do with my support but I saw Q18 and 19, that two questions are also not affecting anyone's !vote as they are not regarding policy. Also, keeping our device out of reach of kids is important. So, unstrike my question, i mean, only if you feel like that it is not too much irrelevant. -- Parnaval (talk) 04:04, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

  @Parnaval, I agree Q18 and 19 are not questions anyone is going to use to inform a decision on whether to support or oppose and therefore are irrelevant to an RfA. I was going to ignore your question too, as (also like Q18 and Q19) it's at least a question the candidate doesn't actually have to give much thought to, or do research on, or work carefully to compose the answer. They're all just throwaway questions. There are multiple other irrelevant questions up there, too, questions asked just because when people are told they can ask up to two questions, they try to think up a question.

  Then you asked whether yours was a good question, and I answered you. Yes, all editors should try to keep their accounts from becoming compromised, and a compromised sysop account can do more damage more quickly. So it's something for new admins to think about. But it's not a good question for an RfA because it's not relevant to the RfA.

  The issue here is that if everyone who !votes in an RfA decides to ask a question or two just because they can, RfAs could include hundreds of questions. And in fact in this RfA, we've got 26 questions, which feels a little excessive. Which means many experienced editors find irrelevant questions unhelpful. I've unstruck. —valereee (talk) 10:26, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

  @Valereee: To clarify, I asked the questions before I !voted and they did help me decide whether to support or oppose. Elli (talk | contribs) 02:44, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

  The mind boggles at how bad an answer to "Why do you think people enjoy editing Wikipedia?" would have to be for it to cause someone to oppose. :D —valereee (talk) 10:38, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

• I want to comment on Q11, having had a closer look at View (Shinee song). The specific complaint addressed in the question is about using direct Google translations for the reference titles, which is a slightly different nuance. There was no suggestion that Ashley was actually putting machine-translated gibberish in the article prose at any time. I think an equivalent in my own editing is this edit in Portez ce vieux whisky au juge blond qui fume. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 13:10, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

The above adminship discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the talk page of either this nomination or the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.